Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Buddhist Morality
Hello there everybody,
I've been reading a while on Buddhism and of course, the right conduct.
However, it seems to me that the way Buddhism view morality as different then other religions. Now my question is basically, do I understand it correctly?
For example, both Christianity and Buddhism value right speech and view lying as bad conduct. In Christianity this is a command, we are not suppose to lie. The act of lying is a sin. Buddhism however has less problems with the actual act of lying, but more with intention of lying, or deceiving, or causing harm. So if the intention is to protect others, the act of lying, no longer is viewed as bad conduct or immoral.
Is this the way to understand it correctly?
I have another, more complicated question of the same sort,
but i shall first wait for your reactions,
Peace,
Dirk
I've been reading a while on Buddhism and of course, the right conduct.
However, it seems to me that the way Buddhism view morality as different then other religions. Now my question is basically, do I understand it correctly?
For example, both Christianity and Buddhism value right speech and view lying as bad conduct. In Christianity this is a command, we are not suppose to lie. The act of lying is a sin. Buddhism however has less problems with the actual act of lying, but more with intention of lying, or deceiving, or causing harm. So if the intention is to protect others, the act of lying, no longer is viewed as bad conduct or immoral.
Is this the way to understand it correctly?
I have another, more complicated question of the same sort,
but i shall first wait for your reactions,
Peace,
Dirk
0
Comments
Christian morality is like "x is wrong because it is against God's will"
Buddhist "morality" is more like "x will prevent enlightenment..."
That's how I see it anyway:)
I understand where you are coming from, but it does not answer my question.
In Christianity "x" would be an act, for example: Lying, or killing, or using the lords name in vain.
Now, my question is: in Buddhism would "x" be an intention, rather then an act? for example: intent to deceive, intent to kill, etc.
I know it's rather theorectial, but I'm curious about what you think.
peace,
Dirk
Hey Dirk,
I think it does answer your question if you keep in mind the emptiness/interconnectivity of all things, including an individuals thoughts, intentions and actions.
For example:
If I intend to kill someone, that intention will have Karmic negative consequences.
If I kill someone, that will also have negative karmic consequences, and I would imagine in all cases they would be much more negative than just intending to but not killing someone.
Does that make sense?
namaste
I am only speaking for myself, but the question just seems too vague and theoretical to me. Buddhism is situational in relationship to "skillful means", and in certain situations things like lying and stealing and even killing might be "skillful means", but there is a lot of karma involved. I have read that in some contexts, for instance, HH 14th Dalai Lama sees defensive military action as permissible. It is even noted that HH The Great 13th Dalai Lama began re-establishing the Tibetan army because he knew what was coming from China.
But these are very very serious situations, and I think it's that seriousness that needs to be emphasized here. When I first saw this thread I almost wanted to just leave it alone because I hoped it wouldn't devolve into "quibbling", and, with no offense meant, I still hope that.
IMHO this discussion should be less theoretical.
It definitely makes sense, thanks for your reply.
I must admit that I find karma/kamma a hard concept to completely grasp, but I understand, that actions have consequences regardless of intention. I hope you don't mind me asking further about this subject.
The reason I ask this question can be best explained with a passage of the introduction to the "book of the Five Rings by Musashi Miyamoto translated by Brian Fullerton:
source: http://samuraiconsulting.ca/5rings/transintro/zen.html
The example is best set with martial art, where hurting each other is a way of training each other, with the goal to be able to defeat enemies in combat. During the book it stresses the importance of "just cutting" not intent to kill, or to cut hard or soft.
Even though all this seems to be in contradiction with the moral code, the immorality of it seems to be negated by the intent. Ofcourse the consequences or karmic value stays the same.
I remember someone posting on this forum an artikel about the Dalai Lama not being completely against violence. I thought it had the same reasoning, if I remember correctly.
Wat is your opinion on this?
Peace
In principle you understand it correctly, but you should consider that 1) there is no immediate directive about white lies in Buddhism, 2) it is a subject of considerable debate among Buddhists, and 3) lying is generally not seen as skilful behaviour.
That being said, my personal interpretation is that white lies are only justified in exceptional cases to protect oneself or others from undue harm. I don't interpret the fourth precept to be compatible with white lies for the sake of convenience.
Cheers, Thomas
I had no intention of ripping things out of context. I just found that
Buddhism had a complex and intriguing view on morality, rather then just: "don't do that"
I was curious on how you guys see this.
But if you find my way of questioning unsutable for discussion, then I will stop it. I allready had good answers to my questions.
peace,
Dirk
In my understanding of things, lying is speaking unskillfully, and is not the best solution in any circumstance because it spreads delusion. In the development of right action, one might begin by stopping the intentional deception, as one opens to the understanding of the deep importance of truth. Then, as one becomes more open and skillful, they might encounter times when they deceive to protect themselves or others from the 'danger' of telling the truth. In these moments, one might notice that they were trying to pretend things weren't painful, as though reality is somehow flawed and people should close their eyes to that flaw. Next, one is open and selfless enough in the moment, transparent enough, that there would be no need to speak falsely... if the truth was hurtful, then silence might be the response, or compassionately addressing the hurt in a way that skillfully heals the pain.
When connections with others are selfless, there is no need to pretend the world is anything but what it is. There is development and understanding when it comes to lying however... its not a "sin", but when you look at the effects of deception, as a practice it is simply not the best way.
With warmth,
Matt
I think a lot of people do - I did - at least until I understood it a bit more. I think the reason for this difficulty is one endemic within Buddhism - cultural influence over the years.
This has lead to karma being considered as a magic force, some celestial merit bank account etc etc... (I should add that the Buddhists here on this forum don't hold these views, or at least they don't seem to)
Karma is in fact very very simple, it is causation - much like the "billiard balls" causation of the physical world - only Karma is causation at the higher levels of the moral/mental/spiritual.
Positive moral/mental/spiritual causes are more likley to have positive moral/mental/spiritual effects. And conversely for negative causes.
That's it really.
The mechanism for this is called dependent origination, which I summarise as:
all causes have many effects.
all effects have many causes.
all effects are causes.
If you think about those conditions being true of all changes, you get this vast web of interconnected changes follwoing the karmic conditioning above.
Not sure I follow that, or really the connection of Martial arts and Buddhism, though I like both:)
namaste
One of the Five Precepts is to abstain from false speech, although I've also read that even these five basic rules are less laws and more guidelines.
--Vil
Well, if you share with us where you read that, it might help the discussion.
For instance, HH Dalai Lama on war, from his website:
"For instance, it is plain to all of us that the Second World War was entirely justified. It "saved civilization" from the tyranny of Nazi Germany, as Winston Churchill so aptly put it. In my view, the Korean War was also just, since it gave South Korea the chance of gradually developing democracy. But we can only judge whether or not a conflict was vindicated on moral grounds with hindsight."
http://www.dalailama.com/messages/world-peace/the-reality-of-war
I myself have been trying to get a grasp of the role of Buddhism in the perspective of the Japanese Samurai culture and whether or not Samurai is a legitimate outgrowth of Buddhism. If anybody could tell me where to find that information I'd appreciate it.
Buddha's advice to a lay practitioner regarding morality can be found here:
DN 31 Sigalovada Sutta: The Buddha's Advice to Sigalaka :
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.31.0.ksw0.html
.
You are spot on actually. See here:
"There are no moral absolutes in Buddhism and it is recognized that ethical decision-making involves a complex nexus of causes and conditions.'Buddhism' encompasses a wide spectrum of beliefs and practices, and the canonical scriptures leave room for a range of interpretations. All of these are grounded in a theory of intentionality, and individuals are encouraged to analyze issues carefully for themselves. ... When making moral choices, individuals are advised to examine their motivation--whether aversion, individuals are advised to examine their motivation--whether aversion, attachment, ignorance, wisdom, or compassion--and to weigh the consequences of their actions in light of the Buddha's teachings."
http://www.buddhism.about.com/od/basicbuddhistteachings/a/morality1.ht
.
Edit; I just read the Wikipedia article on Bushido. It gives you a better idea of bushido's origins than I can give you.
I think I remember- maybe in the Jataka stories- the Buddha, in a previous incarnation, was in a position that he had to kill to prevent worse killing (something like that). If I find that I'll post it but my internet connection is unpredictable.
Edit:
<style type="text/css"> <!-- @page { margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } --> </style> I found this on khandro.net:
http://www.khandro.net/dailylife_war.htm
It is true, however, that one Jataka relates that in a former existence, the Buddha then captain of a ferryboat with 500 merchant -bodhisattvas on board, undertook to murder a pirate who planned to kill everyone in order to steal the cargo. The late Chagdud Tulku (d. 2003) wrote about this incident in "Bodhisattva Warriors:"
The captain, a bodhisattva himself, saw the man's murderous
intention and realized this crime would result in eons of torment for
the murderer. In his compassion, the captain was willing to take
hellish torment upon himself by killing the man to prevent karmic
suffering that would be infinity greater than the suffering of the
murdered victims. The captain's compassion was impartial; his
motivation was utterly selfless.
But also in this teaching, Chagdud Tulku provided the example of how to deal with the current conflict, saying:
. . . I pray that this war will prevent greater wars, greater suffering, and that those opposed to war develop the skills to bring about authentic peace. We cannot fully discern the motivation of any participants involved in the conflict, but it is unlikely that many have the ability to bring about ultimate liberation for friends and enemies alike, or that they will be able to sustain the bodhisattva's impartial compassion as they engage in conflict.
What we can know is our own minds. We can adhere to Buddhist ideals in our activities, whether we are combatants, protestors, decision-makers or concerned witnesses. We can pray that whatever virtue there is in the situation prevails, that genuine peace be established. The Buddha has taught that throughout countless lifetimes all beings have been our parents and have shown us great kindness. Now they have fallen under the sway of the mind's poisons of desire, anger, ignorance, and they suffer terribly. Could we exclude any from our compassion any more than the sun could exclude any from the warmth and radiance of its rays [?]
It turned out to be a very interessting discussion after all, if you ask me.
Thickpaper, thanks for explaining karma, I've always refused to see karma as some sort of a magical force or celestial bank account. I now have a clearer vision of what is does mean.
I find the introduction of the "Skillfull means" very interessting.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.31.0.ksw0.html
Thanks you Vilhjalmr for that link.
Now I don't think that this contradicts Transmethaphicals points, that it lies within the realm of intentionality.
It's quite a lot to grasp for a beginner like me but I sure am intruiged.
Peace,
Dirk
"Pray brother, please do not harm it," said a monk.
"But they are all over the place, and the masters of karma have stated that a man cannot be reincarnated as an insect, and the killing of an insect is a karmically inoperative act."
"Nevertheless," said the monk, "all life being one, in this monastery all do practice the doctrine of ahimsa and refrain from taking life of any sort."
"Yet," said the beggar, "Patanjali does state that it is the intention rather than the act that governs. Therefore, if I killed with love rather than malice, it would be as if I had not killed. I confess that this was not the case and that malice was present - therefore, even if I did not kill I do bear the burden of the guilt because of the presence of that intention. So I could step upon it now and be none the worse for it, according to the principle of ahimsa. Since I am a guest, however, I of course respect the practice and do not do this thing." With this, he moved his sandal away from the insect, which stood immobile, reddish antennae pricked upward.
"Indeed, he is a scholar," said one of the monks.
-Zalazny [Lord of Light]
Interessting quote you have there, could you tell me where you found it?
Thanks in advance,
peace,
Dirk
Who is Patanjali, and who is Zalzany? Are these authoritative Buddhist sources?
I think maybe it was me who provided the link to the Sigalovada Sutta for you, Dirk
It's certainly a good idea for you to first investigate the Buddha's core teachings in the Pali Canon before checking out what the different traditions and their various teachers have to say.
.
This is a totally inaccurate statement. The Buddha's teachings on morality are clearly outlined in the Pali Canon.
Example:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sila/index.html
.
Aw, shucks!
I looked at Wikipedia and elsewhere, and I found Patanjali, but it didn't seem as though he was Buddhist.
You really are fixated on this you/not you, thing, aren't you? (not-you?)
I really think you need to re-examine this aspect of Buddhism, not from a Zen foundation, but from a Pali/Theravada point of view. Theravada texts are after all, the most ancient and original teachings of the Buddha.
Please do some more studying, as I think you've latched onto something and caught it by the tail, rather than the business, nitty-gritty end.
Oh and by the way - Buddhism has more Morality than you can shake a stick at.
Although you are right - Buddhism doesn't 'command' anything.....
Birdshine has no teacher, no sangha, and has not taken the precepts.
even if the buddha killed out of compassion when he was a bodhisatva, he would have never done that as an awakened being.
even though his act of killing may have lessened suffering. his actions of not killing led to his enlightenment. And his enlightenment had a far greater impact on suffering than killing.
so on the premise that an awakened being has by far a greater impact on suffering than one who breaks the precepts out of compassion
I feel that killing is never a good thing but an understandable thing.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca4/samma-vaca/index.html
And sorry to anyone who may have thought I was referencing an "authoritative Buddhist source." It is merely a snippet of a fictional story, heavily cloaked in Buddhist concepts, which I found amusing and relevant.
Yes, in Christianity, you are commanded not to lie. And if you do not obey, you will go to hell.
While in Buddhism, you are already in hell (samsara). And if you wish to get out of hell, not-lying is one of the recommendations (among many others).
As for the action-intention debate:
There are some here that say that intention is everything, and it is not the action but the intention that counts. I do not know how to reconcile this with what my teacher teaches.
He teaches that both count. If you kill by accident, the karmic result is not as strong as when one kills deliberately, but there is still karmic result. By the same token, to do something that benefits others without the intention does not earn as much merit as that which is done with intention. And, finally, to intend harm, even if you do not act on it, has karmic result.
Perhaps the discrepancy is due to different schools of Buddhism holding different views ... my teacher has been a monk since age 12 and is from the Dalai Lama's monastery, so his mastery is in Tibetan Buddhism..